Lindama wrote:The last footnote in the text reads:One of the great ironies in the history of Buddhism is the extent to which teachings that the Buddha clearly disapproved of, such as this one, have later been taught as quintessentially Buddhist. In some circles, a teaching similar to this one — that non-reactivity to pain burns away the impurity of past kamma and creates no new kamma for the future — is still taught as Buddhist to this day.
can anyone put this in context with this discussion?
They're talking about various forms of painful asceticism that the Jains were known to partake in, in an attempt to expunge "impure" karma. They did/do stuff like intentionally sunburn themselves, starve themselves to near death (if they're lucky), lay on beds of nails, hold painful yoga postures, that kind of thing. It would probably be the exact opposite of the "living in sensuality" of the householder, but not in a good (skillful) way.
santa100 wrote:The Miln. and Comy. simply elaborate and clarify what He already said.
I guess I'm more okay with the idea that householders can't progress beyond a certain level than the idea that if they should somehow pull it off while living in a household, that they will die within 24 hours. I think I would need more examples of the Buddha saying anything close to the latter in order to be willing to accept that one.